Arizona shooting range accident

[Starter]

You need to remember that Europeans have a different view to people like you and myself as they don't experience what we do. They aren't wrong all the time and we aint always right either

Something which all of us, both sides in any discussion, need to keep in mind.

[555-04Q2]

Indeed

[steveaki13]

Hey I admit I may be wrong, but IMO guns and the people who use them more often and not cause trouble.

Less guns would generally mean less deaths by guns. That in my view would be a better way to look towards rather than training 9 years olds to use them.

[airshifter]

Don't understand that argument. A 9 year old is not permitted to operate a motor vehicle.

Nor did I say I 9 year old would. I said should not be in a car, as statistics show cars, whether driver or passenger, to be much more deadly than guns.

[airshifter]

Hey I admit I may be wrong, but IMO guns and the people who use them more often and not cause trouble.

Less guns would generally mean less deaths by guns. That in my view would be a better way to look towards rather than training 9 years olds to use them.

Less stairs would mean fewer deaths by stairs. Banning cars would mean fewer deaths by vehicle accidents.

In the end, removing guns from law abiding citizens has shown in the majority of cases to increase violent crime, including murder. Look at any large city for proof of that. On the flip side, areas that adopt concealed carry permits for law abiding owners lowers violent crime rates almost immediately.

So the reality is more legally owned guns reduces deaths by guns.




Having dug into this subject a number of times over the years, I've found that often many different places use the "less death caused by guns" statement, which may be true. Many of them also see an increased murder rate, suicide rates change very little, etc, etc.

If cigarettes were outlawed and it was strictly enforced, no doubt deaths caused by smoking would decline. But if all those former smokers drank themselves to death, would it have accomplished anything?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Less stairs would mean fewer deaths by stairs. Banning cars would mean fewer deaths by vehicle accidents.

In the end, removing guns from law abiding citizens has shown in the majority of cases to increase violent crime, including murder.

So why is it that the homicide rate in London is around 2.5 per 100,000 per year and is significantly lower than most large US cities?

Chicago - 15.2
LA - 7.8
NYC - 4.0
Houston 16.3

[Rollo]

On a secondary note, approximately 45% of US citizens own guns. So you are saying that 38,475,000 of those who do own guns can't be trusted? (Based on an estimated 300 million population.) That's a pretty large number of folks you've throw under the bus. Be very careful when making large sweeping statements, hyperbola tends to creep in.

I would suggest that the majority of people do own guns can't be trusted. I think that virtually every metric on the subject also proves this to be true.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment even says as much:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?

Yes, I will suggest that 38,475,000 of those who do own guns can't be trusted and they can not be trusted to the tune of billions a year. The United States collectively pays for it with wasted GDP on increased health care costs and associated on-costs relating to crime as well.

I will make large large sweeping statements and use hyperbolae. I happen to live in a society which is statistically thirty-five to fifty times safer than the United States precisely because people for the most part are not trusted to own guns.
If there is a capability to abuse something, it is very easy to show that it will be abused and that goes right across the board for a whole host of issues, not just gun ownership.

[Rollo]

Banning cars would mean fewer deaths by vehicle accidents.

There's a thing too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-to-catch-on/
If just 10 percent of the vehicles on the road were self-driving cars, the authors estimate, the country could save more than $37 billion a year — fewer deaths, less fuel, more free time. If we reached a point where self-driving vehicles constituted 90 percent of the cars on the road, the benefits would rise to some $447.1 billion a year.
- Washington Post, 23rd Oct 2014

If I was a large company like Pickfords or FedEx, I would seriously be looking at investing in self-driving vehicles. Self-driving vehicles where you'd remove the human element would produce fewer vehicle accidents provided the technology was good enough.

Less stairs would mean fewer deaths by stairs.

This is true.
Deaths by stairs in the US is about 1500 a year, deaths by elevator are less than 30. (I'd need to go back and find the stats for this if you like).

[Starter]

I would suggest that the majority of people do own guns can't be trusted. I think that virtually every metric on the subject also proves this to be true.

The vast majority of those who own guns here have never before, and never will, shoot another person. That does not jibe in any way with your comment. Please explain. Not to mention citing the metric you quote.

Furthermore, the Second Amendment even says as much:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?

Read it again. It says the militia should be well regulated, not the people. It comes from the founding of our country and the mistrust of government and government tyranny.

I will make large large sweeping statements and use hyperbolae. I happen to live in a society which is statistically thirty-five to fifty times safer than the United States precisely because people for the most part are not trusted to own guns.
If there is a capability to abuse something, it is very easy to show that it will be abused and that goes right across the board for a whole host of issues, not just gun ownership.

If that works for you, and I'm sure it does, I support your right to have that kind of government and will make no attempt to interfere. The courtesy of reciprocal action on your part will be appreciated.

[Rollo]

It comes from the founding of our country and the mistrust of government and government tyranny.

Yes. I'd forgot about that.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...arms-quotation
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson. Earliest known appearance in print: 1989